Originally Posted by Danny:
I am no fan of the liberal party.However they have if I am correct they are the largest party in the Anti EU movement with regards to councillors.They have far more than UKIP.The EDP I think only have one I am led to beleive the liberal party has 30 plus so probably ten times as many as UKIP.

Actually you're wrong Danny, the BNP are the largest anti-EU party in terms of councillors!:-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Danny:
I am no fan of the liberal party.However they have if I am correct they are the largest party in the Anti EU movement with regards to councillors.They have far more than UKIP.The EDP I think only have one I am led to beleive the liberal party has 30 plus so probably ten times as many as UKIP.

At the time of writing, this is UKIP's list of councillors:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post495618

They currently have 13, including 3 defectors.
[Rep]

They look like a bunch of car-hating, progressive-taxing leftie tossers to me.

Originally Posted by :
substantial premiums over and above the rate of inflation on vehicle fuels and the increasing subsidisation of a properly regulated and integrated public transport system;
speed limits regulated according to traffic conditions, including a new road designation introduced for residential roads with a speed limit of, say, 8mph. Residents should be able to petition the local authority for such a designation and it only be refused if:
i) the road already serves a necessary distribution function;

ii) no part of the 8mph zone is more than 100m from a 30mph road;

new road classifications to include locally determined speed restrictions;
the creation of car-free residential areas.
Additionally, Liberals believe that, if widespread gridlock on our roads is to be avoided in the future, some sort of rationing of vehicle use and even vehicle ownership is inevitable.

Originally Posted by :
Liberals therefore advocated a tax system where all earnings under £10,000 are tax free and thus the need for compensatory tax credits and other forms of benefit is reduced, and that this should be balanced by increasing the rate of taxation to 50% for earnings over £100,000 of taxable income.

Yep. Not really much different from the Lib Dims.

Originally Posted by :
We would reduce the minimum voting age to 16.

A leftie standard, that.

Originally Posted by :
The international community has not been as pro-active as it might have been during the post-war years in securing justice for the Palestinians and that much of the blame for what has happened in the Middle East rests with the UK.

Another leftie standard. The problems in the ME couldn't possibly have been caused by all the Jew-hating muzzers down there, could they?
[Rep]

No political party is going to have every policy I want and none that I don't. The real difference for me is that if you belong to a truly democratic party then if you can make a convincing argument for your case and can convince the other members then there is every chance that your policy will be adopted.

To belong to a party that is not democratic is depressing if you know that the leadership will choose the policies they want irrespective of the members wishes.
[Rep]

I've often wondered how the Liberal Party were left so screwed by the Liberal-SDP merger and how 90% of the membership left them - and all the leading figures (MPs, Council controlling local parties etc).

They really are a husk, which is a shame with Britain lacking a true liberal movement that has not been poisoned by the Left/Socialism.

They do however, have strong local support in Liverpool, Peterborough and Southampton - where local communities of all backgrounds normally have no hesitation in returning their hard-working councillors.
[Rep]

My recollection is that the merger was rushed by Steel, Owen wanted to take more time but some of the leading SDP members supported Steel's wish to tie the thing up quickly. I would not be surprised if it were Williams who tipped the balance as she is clearly far more pro the EU than the stated SDP position at the time which was 'In Europe, but not run by Europe' if my memory serves [and it usually doesn't].

Perhaps Steel was simply fed up with being depicted as the 'boy David' in relationship to the far more substantial David Owen.

If this is about right - it was something of a tragedy that Owen was unable to follow his instincts, for if he had been able to, we would have at least had one of the three main parties as eurosceptic.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
No political party is going to have every policy I want and none that I don't. The real difference for me is that if you belong to a truly democratic party then if you can make a convincing argument for your case and can convince the other members then there is every chance that your policy will be adopted.

Exactly. There are various Liberal Party policies that I don't agree with, but none that I find so awful as to stop me supporting the party.

However, there are a few places where the Liberal Party's current policy documents, manifestos and/or party constitution seem to contradict one another. Sometimes this is because nobody has got around to updating one or other document, sometimes it is even just due to typos. Those things will have to be sorted out and clarified. The party is gradually renewing itself, and as more people become interested in it, they are increasingly going to start pointing out inconsistencies and asking awkward questions about them - as some here like Britannist already have. Policies are updated very democratically by the annual Liberal Assembly, but probably it would also be good if a policy committee prepared a list of minor inconsistencies that need sorting out and submitted it for approval to the Assembly.
[Rep]

By the way, I reckon there is a good reason why UKIP supporters - even the more right wing UKIP supporters - should wish the Liberal Party well. They should want the Liberal Party to flourish on its own terms, without becoming more like UKIP. And Liberal Party supporters should feel the same way about UKIP.

The reason is to do with what happens if we ever manage to win a referendum to take Britain out of the EU.

What happens then? Somebody in another thread pointed out that Britain would still be in the hands of the Labour/Tory/LibDem pro-EU troika. How long before they found some excuse to take us right back into the EU again? Six months? Two years? As the person on the other thread pointed out, we need a proper exit strategy which deals with this problem.

"No probs," say UKIP supporters. "We'll simply campaign until UKIP is the biggest party in parliament, with an overall majority, and then the UKIP government will ensure that Britain really does leave the EU."

But what happens at the following election, or the one after? However popular leaving the EU might have been, no party stays in power for ever, or should even want to. Sooner or later UKIP would lose an election and then power would be back in the hands of one or more of the pro-EU parties.

The challenge we face is therefore even bigger than many here have realised. Simply winning a referendum wouldn't be enough. Even UKIP winning a parliamentary majority wouldn't be enough. The only thing that will be enough to ensure permanent independence is to either convert two or more of the troika parties to an anti-EU stance or to replace the troika parties altogether with a new political spectrum of anti-EU parties. In that case there needs to be a left-wing anti-EU party, and a centrist one as well as a right wing one. That is why UKIP can't do this alone, and that is why SuperiorSteve's suggestion for cooperation between UKIP, the Liberals and the Green Party is in my personal opinion a thoroughly good idea.
[Rep]

I have now had a look at the Liberal Party's Policies. To me they look like a wish list for "Earth Mothers",or those we call down here , a "Little bit Totnes"! Some of their Farming and Fishing policies I agree with, but their nil punishment for criminals I don't, especially their no Prison for 18 year olds and under! I think there's a good chance of every Criminal in the land voting for the Liberals with their ideas on how to deal with criminals! A World Court in my book is also no, no. Just think of the power this would hand to a few people! Britain giving up it's Nuclear weapons, what Lilly lib nutter thought that one up? Our enemies would be delighted! I wish all of you Liberal party backers well, I hope you live long, healthy and happy lives, fortunately for the rest of us your party will never see power!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by kernow:
I have now had a look at the Liberal Party's Policies. To me they look like a wish list for "Earth Mothers",or those we call down here , a "Little bit Totnes"!

:-)

Like it! I know what you mean. I don't think the Liberals are a "little bit Totnes" party, but I do think we have a Little Bit Totnes Tendency! Maybe we should advertise the party through New Age shops? No harm in playing to your strengths, is there? :-)

Originally Posted by kernow:
A World Court in my book is also no, no.

A World Court already exists!

There is some mention on the Liberal website of a World Government. I am strongly in favour of the United Nations - hideously flawed though it be, we need some sort of body for international cooperation and our best option is to try to improve the one we already have. So I'm pro-UN and I'm glad the Liberal Party is too. However, if a World Government is supposed to imply setting all sorts of currently national policies at international level (eg taxation, welfare services, education etc) then I'd be strongly against. So I'm going to try to get some sort of clarification of that.
[Rep]